I am not discounting the dangers of the hook.
But, there are other issues that come into play,
such as all the spaghetti one can get in trouble with,
(the shock cord, sheets, etc) when looped around the
legs and torso real tight. Getting unhooked is the easy part.

Hi,
I've used the "Ball & Socket" system for about 20 years now. It's nothing new. (see photo attached) I like it much better than the hook as there is no metal to hit you in the teeth or eyeball when not using it and you don't punch a hole in your boat climbing back on after a capsize. As it applies to this discussion, it is probably no easier or harder to release than the hooks. However, it seems to me either is adequate for complying with rule 40.2

Steve
Hobie FX-1, Sail# 211

Hi Steve,

As you note, both hook and ball systems have been around for years... So... I assume that these system are not sufficient for ISAF. Otherwise, Why would they have put forth the rule.

Perhaps, they are only addressing the continuous systems that have you permantly attached to the boat (as noted above) However, if that were the case, you would think they would have been explicit in their rule making.

So, my current take is that nobody really knows what's legal in 06 and I wonder how sailors will be informed of what's legal or not!

As a race organizer like yoursef and looking forward .. I would refuse to write a Sailing Instruction that undercut this rule... God forbid an accident related to harnesses occur on your watch.

Indeed... I wonder if the SI, "... protests related ro rule 40.2 will not be heard " would be an acceptable way out of the fog. I have seen SI's which state that protests concerning the US coast guard requirment for a throwable will not be heard. I wonder if that has ever caused trouble?

I know its a real PIA to carry a throwable for the Coast Guard for our distance races!

Thanks for yours and anyone elses thoughts

How about explosive bolts, like on the space capsules????

Nah... poke your eye out!

BUT.... your thinking... your thinking

How about a hook made from tissue paper! Then it would disolve once it got in the water....or might there be something I'm overlooking?

Sharks and alligators.

Great.....

Lets let the world of litagation enter our world of sailing.

I did not know our sport was dangerous, afterall, the A cat manual does not say "sailing can be fatal"

Explosive bolts? Dear god think about about where that hook usually hangs man!

Exposive bolts could be RC controlled too. The race commitee could punch the sail number of OCS boats into the computer and "notify" them of thier status all at the same time! There would be no more bitching about courses or squareness of start line or anything else either.

Really though, the wording IMO is intentionally vague in order to start the process of selecting something. Let's hope it's cheaper than the center buckle of a 5-point harness used in race cares. They are around $300 a pop.

Why has nobody questioned why ISAF has the right to legislate a thing like this in the first place?

Why wouldn't they have the right? Other sports' governing bodies have required minimum standards of equipment for safety grounds for years so I can't see a logical reason for saying that ISAF can't. Might save them from being sued by some over litigious American!

Well, I would think it is the other way around -- that the more rules they have involving safety, the more they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Maybe it is better if they leave it up to the individual sailor to figure out what he thinks is safe on his boat.

I think the job of ISAF and of the various MNA's is to make recommendations and educate people regarding safety, not to legislate.

I agree that there is way too much legislating going on! That goes for all governing bodies.
Rick

Hi Mary

Do you feel the same way about Race Committe's who insist on the rule All must wear Life Jackets while racing"?

How about the Fed's mandating front air bags in cars?

How about the fed's dictating the bumper height of cars?

An experienced sailor died and those attempting to help were powerless to save him because of a limitation in his equipment. It would seem that while this is not common, more people have reported near misses and so the problem is quite real and not insignificant.

The obvious solution is to require the use of better equipment. The fact that few options (perhaps just one) exist on the market right now points to a real problem.
I certainly was aware of the sailor's death and its cause but I was not out there looking for a saftey solution. The new rule will change my behavior and I will upgrade when the equipment is approved and available.

ISAF and the National Sailing authorities have done what they are supposed to do... Take a leadership position and require sailors to upgrade their equipment. Mind you, the legislation pertains ONLY to sailors racing under the rules as specified by ISAF and spelled out in the general sailing instructions.

You are free to ammend the rules and waive this particular rule for any races that you PRO. Will you choose to waive this rule?

Take Care
Mark

Mark,
In my uninformed opinion, I think the new trapeze rule 40.2, "A trapeze or hiking harness shall have a device capable of quickly releasing the competitor from the boat at all times while in use," allows the trapeze harnesses we already are using. It sounds like the purpose is to eliminate "continuous" trapeze systems that attach you to the boat, or maybe people actually tying themselves to the boat for purposes of hiking or trapezing.

Nobody has asked whether this is going to extend to disallowing tethers, as well, since they attach you to the boat. In some cases you WANT to be attached to the boat, and in some cases you don't. How can you legislate this stuff?

The mere fact that there is so much confusion and discussion about the meaning of the rule makes it obvious that lawyers would have a field day with it.

As far as a race committee waiving the rule, that depends upon the interpretation of the rule, which we still do not have. If it includes tethering, and if tethers are attached to trapeze harnesses, I would assume the rule would have to be waived for long-distance catamaran races.

EVERYTHING in life and in the world is potentially dangerous. Even life jackets have resulted in drownings because of people being trapped beneath boats and not being able to swim out.

Race committees can mandate whatever they want. If you don't like it, you can pack up and go home. ISAF and US Sailing have not made a rule requiring all racing sailors to wear life jackets at all times. And neither has the Coast Guard. I would be totally opposed to a rule like that, and apparently I am not alone.

ISAF and US Sailing should educate rather than legislate. Sailors are not stupid. Give us the facts and statistics and anecdotal evidence and let us make up our own minds about what equipment we think is safe or unsafe.

As far as cars, I really don't think anybody is interested in my opinions, considering that I think electrically-controlled windows in cars are responsible for a lot of drownings. Give me a crank any day. Should the government require car manufacturers to go back to manual-crank windows just because people keep driving into canals in Florida?

Seat belts? No problem, because I can't be forced to wear them.

Air bags? Problem, because I don't have a choice. The government can force the manufacturers to put air bags into their vehicles, but I, as the consumer, should not be forced to have an air bag if I don't want it. Air bags save lives, but they also cause deaths. In fact, a member of Rick's family is partially paralyzed for life because of an air bag (seems he was too tall, and the air bag deployed in a minor, 15-mph incident in a parking lot. Hit him under the chin and broke a vertebra.) The manufacturers should give you the option of air bags at no extra cost. If you want a car without them, it should be available. Just like you should be able to get a car with crank windows.

Actually I think most of us only attach a tether (a.k.a. chicken line) to the dogbone - not to the harness itself. David and I did this because we didn't want another attachment from us to the boat. It worked just fine that way.

Jake,
In my understanding, a tether and a chicken line are two different things. A chicken line is something to hold onto to keep you from falling off the boat. A tether keeps you attached to the boat if you do fall off.

aaaaa...I should have seen that...sorry. The way I look at it with regards to either falling off and loosing the boat or tyeing on with a tether, at least you get a second chance if you loose the boat with the EPIRB, smoke, and/or strobe.

This has always been a big dilemma -- to tether or not to tether. The most important thing on a long-distance race is to not become separated from the boat, because usually there is nobody around to help. In bad conditions if you fall off and are separated from the boat, is the remaining person going to be able to come back alone to get you? If the boat capsizes as a result of your falling off, will the other person be able to right the boat alone? What if you both fall off and become separated from the boat? I would rather be keelhauled a few times with the boat cartwheeling, and break a few bones, than be alone in the ocean watching my boat drift off over the horizon. And if you become separated from the boat at night, forget it.

Big-boat sailors have a relatively short tether line on their safety harness, and they can snap their tether onto attachment points on the boat or onto a "jackline" that runs fore and aft so they have mobility but cannot fall off the boat. I haven't heard any rule saying they are not allowed to use tethers because they are "attached" to the boat. I have not heard a rule saying they have to be able to have a quick-release from their tether in case the boat rolls over.

This particular rule is about hiking and trapeze harnesses specifically. They did not say you cannot be attached to the boat -- just that you have to be able to detach your trapeze harness from the boat. So are they saying that you can continue to be attached to the boat as long as it does not involve your trapeze harness? So are we now going to have to wear, in addition to life jacket and trapeze harness, a safety harness (like on the big boats) to which to fasten our tether, so we can "technically" comply to the rule?

I asked the Multihull Council if they discussed this new rule at their meeting in October, but I haven't gotten an answer yet.

Right now I do not think this rule was very well thought out, at least as to how it affects multihulls.